2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

LuckyLloyd

Genuinely surprised Cruz didn't take it all the way to the convention.

A remarkable political campaign from Trump that has essentially rewrote a huge number of supposed cardinal rules about how to successfully campaign in modern American politics.

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Genuinely surprised Cruz didn't take it all the way to the convention.

Me too.

But now that Cruz is gone. Trump all his focus will be on Clinton.

Clinton thought Sanders had a 'negative tone'. She ain't seen nothing yet

Hande hoche!

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Genuinely surprised Cruz didn't take it all the way to the convention.

A remarkable political campaign from Trump that has essentially rewrote a huge number of supposed cardinal rules about how to successfully campaign in modern American politics.

Very true, there was a tremendous amount written about Obama's digital strategy in his reelection campaign. Would imagine there will be as much written on Trump, if not more, and his attempts to gain the Republican nomination.

ancapailldorcha

I'm amazed John Kasich is still hanging in there to be honest. It must be at the behest of the GOP's higher-ups though his chances were always less than Cruz's.

timmyntc

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm amazed John Kasich is still hanging in there to be honest. It must be at the behest of the GOP's higher-ups though his chances were always less than Cruz's.

Perhaps after Cruz's attempts to get the evangelical vote have failed, they think that Kasich can take some of the 'moderate' republican vote from Trump and stop him from getting the nomination.

It would be one hell of a shock if Trump didn't get the nomination at this stage though

RobertKK

Trump made himself look the bigger man last night. I stayed up to see how he would react.
Cruz, not one mention of Trump, which was pathetic.
Trump did talk about Cruz, what a tough fighter he was to be up against and how he has a great future.
Talked about all the jobs leaving the US for other countries and how that can't continue.
Talked about miners and why Hillary Clinton was wrong to be talking about shutting down mines.
Talked about how the GOP now needs unity.
The Democrat supporters were saying how he gave a good speech, and how Trump seemed genuinely surprised at how May 3rd 2016 turned out to be a monumental day for him.

We also learned from Indiana that the negative ads against him in that state failed miserably. There was a reported 60,000 negative ads against Trump aired in Indiana.
CNN showed how Trump could win the election. He is popular with workers and his message of jobs going abroad is something that needs to be stopped is gaining traction, and it is something that could win him states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The Democrat supporters on the CNN panel were saying the Democrats need to take Trump seriously because he has tapped into an area of serious discontent as people have seems their jobs go abroad or their working conditions disimprove - and this is a similar message to what Sanders is pushing on the Democrat side.
There is so much discontent in the US right now. Trump has been the standout candidate if one looks at where he was 12 months ago - not a politician to where he is now, an election away from the White House.
His rise has been spectacular and it shows why he can go all the way, not part of the establishment and is getting his message across in record turn outs for Republican voting.
Hillary Clinton has it all to do.

RobertKK

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm amazed John Kasich is still hanging in there to be honest. It must be at the behest of the GOP's higher-ups though his chances were always less than Cruz's.

The GOP chairman came out last night and tweeted that Trump was the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.

Kasich is suppose to give a breakfast speech today.

Eric Cartman

Well , with only hated hillary , bonkers bernie and the donald left in the race , Im left with no other choice now really.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Hande hoche!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm amazed John Kasich is still hanging in there to be honest. It must be at the behest of the GOP's higher-ups though his chances were always less than Cruz's.

Saw a description elsewhere, he is running fourth in a two man race.

ancapailldorcha

The nomination is now Donald's in all but formality it seems. I can't see him beating Hilary in November though. A lot of the GOP moderates would prefer to see her in than Donald.

JPNelsforearm

People still dont get Trump, the sneering at his target demographic continues.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/4/11586360/donald-trump-conservatism
"Donald Trump's victory proves Republican voters want resentful nationalism, not principled conservatism"

Five years ago, it would have sounded like a partisan slur to say the GOP harbored enough racial resentment, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, and latent authoritarianism to nominate someone like Donald Trump. But it was true.

What is "principled conservatism", without conserving the nation, what exactly are they conserving? A tax/trade policy for multinationals?

ancapailldorcha

I have no sympathy given that many Trump supporters are more than happy to sneer at everyone else. Given his comments about women, ethnic minorities and so on, a lot of it seems understandable.

The Randy Riverbeast

This will be fun. Given how unfavourable both have been polling at it will become who do you hate least. Clinton looks to be in the lead at the moment but time is her enemy. Trump has his supporters, he could kill a member of their families and they'll still vote for him and those who dislike him are unlikely to change their minds unless Clinton does something to make her worse for them.

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no sympathy given that many Trump supporters are more than happy to sneer at everyone else. Given his comments about women, ethnic minorities and so on, a lot of it seems understandable.

I just find it ironic, that a paper that takes the moral high ground on Trump, engages in exactly the same type of rhetoric, failed rhetoric at that, a call for the Republican party to discard the great unwashed in favour of some metaphysical "conservatism". They decry identity politics on the part of white republican voters, yet engage in that very same form of identity politics to their own ends, they still dont see why Trump exists, far easier to chalk it off to redneck xenophobia and ignorance.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

They decry identity politics on the part of white republican voters, yet engage in that very same form of identity politics to their own ends, they still dont see why Trump exists, far easier to chalk it off to redneck xenophobia and ignorance.

What's the difference between "white identity politics" and xenophobia?

timmyntc

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the difference between "white identity politics" and xenophobia?

There isn't any. Neither is there any difference between non-white identity politics/black identity politics/hispanic/etc and xenophobia/racism.
The very notion of identity politics is an inherently divisive and frankly stupid movement, as, just as we were beginning to make progress by breaking down barriers between races/classes etc now there are movements to put them back up, only this time it's the 'ex-victims' of discrimination who want to discriminate against others :pac:

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the difference between "white identity politics" and xenophobia?

What is the difference between hispanic identity politics and (predominantly)white identity politics(in the US context)? One waves a mexican flag and wishes for an open border and more Hispanic immigration, the other waves a US flag and wants a closed border and to keep the US as a predominantly European state.

Preserving your homeland is not xenophobia. As no doubt, the multitude of extinct native american nations can attest to.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/727137190967435265



You cannot on the one hand, jump onboard with identity politics because it suits your liberal viewpoint, yet when the republican base does so, suddenly its racist and xenophobic. All forms of identity politics are, by their nature, exclusionary, no matter who they are practiced by, how liberal or illiberal the person is..

Eugene Norman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

People still dont get Trump, the sneering at his target demographic continues.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/4/11586360/donald-trump-conservatism
"Donald Trump's victory proves Republican voters want resentful nationalism, not principled conservatism"

Five years ago, it would have sounded like a partisan slur to say the GOP harbored enough racial resentment, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, and latent authoritarianism to nominate someone like Donald Trump. But it was true.

What is "principled conservatism", without conserving the nation, what exactly are they conserving? A tax/trade policy for multinationals?

Principled conservatism is blowing Iraq to smithereens.

Trump could get some sanders supporters if he veers left. He needs to cut the anti immigrant rhethoric a bit (sure control borders but no deportations).

FA Hayek

This is going to be fun or terrible. We are going to have the ultimate anti-establishment candidate vs the most establishment candidate you can get. If the election was today, Hilary would win but there is a long way to November yet. Trump is going to be box office. Can you imagine the hype in the debates between himself and Hilary. That alone is a few extra EC votes in the bag for Trump. I still think Hilary will nudge it in the end and will be booted out after 4 years but Trump in the White House can definitely happen. He seems to have momentum and is tailoring, evolving into a more moderate consensus candidate.

One thing is certain though, hillary needs to win the positive message. It will not be enough for her to just smeer Trump and its supporters as racists, idiots, rednecks etc. That may work on vox.com but it will not work in main st. USA. Many have yet to figure out why Trump exists. The emergence of the radical illiberal left who talks down to people and elite Republicans who are more interested in cheap labour and their hedge funds than fixing working class problems in America.

Hillary needs to win over these people, which is very difficult for her as she is as establishment as it gets.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What is the difference between hispanic identity politics and (predominantly)white identity politics(in the US context)? One waves a mexican flag and wishes for an open border and more Hispanic immigration, the other waves a US flag and wants a closed border and to keep the US as a predominantly European state.

You can't see the difference between one side trying to coexist and one side trying to shut out the other? If someone was trying to stop white people getting in or deported then sure they would be the same but that isn't true.

Sure if minority identity politics involved trying to rid the country of a different race I would agree that they are bad. Here they just want to coexist. Given it recently came out that Reagan created the drug war to make it easier to lock up minorities can you blame them for not wanting to vote republican?

The photo as presented has an obviously a stupid sign but we don't know the context of it. In particular it seems to be a play on make America great again so could easily be satire as opposed to being serious.

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

You can't see the difference between one side trying to coexist and one side trying to shut out the other? If someone was trying to stop white people getting in or deported then sure they would be the same but that isn't true.

Sure if minority identity politics involved trying to rid the country of a different race I would agree that they are bad. Here they just want to coexist. Given it recently came out that Reagan created the drug war to make it easier to lock up minorities can you blame them for not wanting to vote republican?

The photo as presented has an obviously a stupid sign but we don't know the context of it. In particular it seems to be a play on make America great again so could easily be satire as opposed to being serious.

"Trying to coexist", immigrating in such numbers that you push out the natives and alter the demographics in your favour, google "La Raza", "Reconquista". Soft colonialism is still colonialism.

"We're the only ethnic group in America that has been dismembered. We didn't migrate here or immigrate here voluntarily. The United States came to us in succeeding waves of invasions. We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that's their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest

"In an interview with the Star-Telegram in October 2000, Gutierrez stated that many recent Mexican immigrants "want to recreate all of Mexico and join all of Mexico into one... even if it's just demographically.... They are going to have political sovereignty over the Southwest and many parts of the Midwest."

In a videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog website (as cited in the Washington Times), Gutierrez is quoted as saying:

“ We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/16/20060416-122222-1672r/

http://www.insearchofaztlan.com/gutierrez.html

"Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well under way. [However] A meaningful move to reunite these territories with Mexico seems unlikely...
No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can and do make that claim"

"This trend could consolidate the Mexican-dominant areas of the United States into an autonomous, culturally and linguistically distinct, and economically self-reliant bloc within the United States. “We may be building toward the one thing that will choke the melting pot,” warns former National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman Graham Fuller, “an ethnic area and grouping so concentrated that it will not wish, or need, to undergo assimilation into the mainstream of American multi-ethnic English-speaking life.”"

http://web.archive.org/web/20160322004801/http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/28/the-hispanic-challenge/



But of course, its only white redneck Donald Trump supporters who engage in "the bad type of identity politics".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlWdlJGFsA4

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What is the difference between hispanic identity politics and (predominantly)white identity politics(in the US context)?

[...]

You cannot on the one hand, jump onboard with identity politics because it suits your liberal viewpoint, yet when the republican base does so, suddenly its racist and xenophobic. All forms of identity politics are, by their nature, exclusionary, no matter who they are practiced by, how liberal or illiberal the person is..

I'm confused. Is identity politics a good thing, or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it's white identity politics, but a bad thing when it's non-white?

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. Is identity politics a good thing, or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it's white identity politics, but a bad thing when it's non-white?

Have you yourself not deemed the latter good and the former bad?
Why the sudden "confusion" ?

ebbsy

I don't think that coal industry quote from Hillary helped her either.

Trump will seize these opportunities with both hands.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I just find it ironic, that a paper that takes the moral high ground on Trump, engages in exactly the same type of rhetoric, failed rhetoric at that, a call for the Republican party to discard the great unwashed in favour of some metaphysical "conservatism". They decry identity politics on the part of white republican voters, yet engage in that very same form of identity politics to their own ends, they still dont see why Trump exists, far easier to chalk it off to redneck xenophobia and ignorance.

I don't read Vox so I am unable to comment there. If memory serves, Trump hasn't actually won with a majority in most of the primaries he's won which would signify that there is a large contingent in the GOP which doesn't want him as their nominee.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. Is identity politics a good thing, or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it's white identity politics, but a bad thing when it's non-white?

Its neither, its an inevitability, neither good nor bad, its a fact of life. My only qualm, is the one-sidedness on display in the media, in liberal academia, on this thread. Bernie Sanders speaks at a LaRaza convention, fine, but he speaks about racial discrimination(aka white discrimination) at a group whose existence and name is implicitly racist. My objection is against the broader narrative, that only one type of identity politics is "bad".

Only denigrating one type of identity politics, in this case the "ignorant white xenophobic redneck", whilst pandering to the very same mindset in Hispanics because its socially palatable, will only lead to a greater pushback, Donald Trump is just the start. You cannot alter demographics(by mass immigration) to suit a political or utopian vision of how the world should be, its engendering conflict.

Fr Tod Umptious

Amazingfun wrote: »

Have you yourself not deemed the latter good and the former bad?
Why the sudden "confusion" ?

If anyone needs proof that "non-white" identity politics is as bad as "white" identity politics then just look back at O' Malley being forced to apologise when he suggested that "all lives matter"

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't read Vox so I am unable to comment there. If memory serves, Trump hasn't actually won with a majority in most of the primaries he's won which would signify that there is a large contingent in the GOP which doesn't want him as their nominee.

At this stage in the primaries he has had more votes than McCain and Romney had at the end of their respective cycles iirc. This with the entire Republican establishment allayed against him, and with minimal ad spend. And yes undoubtedly, a large section of the GOP doesnt want him, the god squad, the big business donors, the "establishment", much like Sanders in the Democratic party.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

At this stage in the primaries he has had more votes than McCain and Romney had at the end of their respective cycles iirc. This with the entire Republican establishment allayed against him, and with minimal ad spend. And yes undoubtedly, a large section of the GOP doesnt want him, the god squad, the big business donors, the "establishment", much like Sanders in the Democratic party.

But if he hasn't won a majority then it is reasonable to suggest that much and possibly most of the GOP doesn't actually want him as their nominee.

Harry Palmr

The English language is certainly in for a hard time if Trump wins.